Economics 101

No One is going to get Rich by Buying and Selling only one Share of Stock

It takes money to make money. I’m sure we all heard that before. If you want to ‘flip’ a house you need money for a down payment to get a mortgage first. If you want to start a business you need to save up some money first. Or borrow it from a family member. And if you want to get rich by playing the stock market you need money. A lot of money. Because you only make money by selling stocks. And before you can sell them you have to buy them.

Stock prices may go up and down a lot. But over a period of time the average stock price may only increase a little bit. So if you bought one share of stock at, say, $35 and sold it later at, say, $37.50 that’s a gain of 7.14%. Which is pretty impressive. Just try to earn that with a savings account at a bank. Of course, you only made a whopping $2.50. So no one is going to get rich by buying and selling only one share of stock.

However, if you bought 10,000 shares of a stock at $35/share and then sold it later at $37.50 that’s a whole other story. Your initial stock purchase will cost you $350,000. And that stock will sell for $375,000 at $37.50/share. Giving you a gain of $25,000. Let’s say you make 6 buys and sells in a year like this with the same money. You buy some stock, hold it a month or so and then sell it. Then you use that money to buy some more stock, hold it for a month or so and then sell it. Assuming you replicate the same 7.14% stock gain through all of these transactions the total gain will come to $150,000. And if you used no more than your original investment of $350,000 during that year that $350,000 will have given you a return on investment of 42.9%. This is why the rich get richer. Because they have the money to make money. Of course, if stock prices move the other way investors can have losses as big as these gains.

Rich Investors benefit most from the Fed’s Quantitative Easing that gives us Near-Zero Interest Rates

Rich investors can make an even higher return on investment by borrowing from a brokerage house. He or she can open a margin account. Deposit something of value in it (money, stocks, option, etc.) and use that value as collateral. This isn’t exactly how it works but it will serve as an illustration. In our example an investor could open a margin account with a value of $175,000. So instead of spending $350,000 the investor can borrow $175,000 from the broker and add it to his or her $175,000. Bringing the total stock investment to $350,000. Earning that $25,000 by risking half of the previous amount. Bringing the return on investment to 116.7%. But these big returns come with even bigger risks. For if your stock loses value it can make your losses as big as those gains.

Some investors borrow money entirely to make money. Such as carry trades. Where an investor will borrow a currency from a low-interest rate country to invest in the currency of a higher-interest rate country. For example, they could borrow a foreign currency at a near zero interest rate (like the Japanese yen). Convert that money into U.S. dollars. And then use that money to buy an American treasury bond paying, say, 2%. So they basically borrow money for free to invest. Making a return on investment without using any of his or her money. However, these carry trades can be very risky. For if the yen gains value against the U.S. dollar the investor will have to pay back more yen than they borrowed. Wiping out any gain they made. Perhaps even turning that gain into a loss. And a small swing in the exchange rate can create a huge loss.

So there is big money to make in the stock market. Making money with money. And investors can make even more money when they borrow money. Making money with other people’s money. Something rich investors like doing. Something rich investors can do because they are rich. For having money means you don’t have to use your money to make money. Because having money gives you collateral. The ability to use other people’s money. At very attractive interest rates. In fact, it’s these rich investors that benefit most from the Fed’s quantitative easing that is giving us near-zero interest rates.

People on Wall Street are having the Time of their Lives during the Obama Administration

We are in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression. Yet the stock market is doing very well. Investors are making a lot of money. At a time when businesses are not hiring. The labor force participation rate has fallen to levels not seen since the Seventies. People can’t find full-time jobs. Some are working a part-time job because that’s all they can find. Some are working 2 part-time jobs. Or more. Others have just given up trying to find a full-time job. People the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) no longer counts when calculating the unemployment rate.

This is the only reason why the unemployment rate has fallen. If you add the number of people who have left the labor force since President Obama took office to the number the BLS reports as unemployed it would bring the unemployment rate up to 13.7% ((10,459,000 + 10,854,000)/155,724,000) at the end of February. So the economy is still horrible. No secret to those struggling in it. And the median family who has seen their income fall. So why is the stock market doing so well when businesses are not? When profitable businesses operations typically drive the stock market? For when businesses do well they grow and hire more people. But businesses aren’t growing and hiring more people. So if it’s not profitable businesses operations raising stock prices what is? Just how are the rich getting richer when the economy as a whole is stuck in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression?

Because of near zero interest rates. The Fed has lowered interest rates to near zero to purportedly stimulate the economy. Which it hasn’t. When they could lower interest rates no more they started their quantitative easing. Printing money to buy bonds on the open market. Flooding the economy with cheap money. But people aren’t borrowing it. Because the employment picture is so poor that they just aren’t spending money. Either because they don’t have a job. Only have a part time job. Or are terrified they may lose their job. And if they do lose their job the last thing they want when unemployed is a lot of debt they can’t service. And then there’s Obamacare. Forcing people to buy costly insurance. Leaving them less to spend on other things. And increasing the cost of doing business. Another reason not to hire people.

So the economy is going nowhere. And because of the bad economy businesses have no intentions of spending or expanding. So they don’t need any of that cheap money. So where is it going? Wall Street. The only people who are borrowing and spending money. They’re taking that super cheap money and they’re using it to buy and sell stocks. They’re buying and selling like never before. Making huge profits. Thanks to other people’s money. This is what is raising stock prices. Not profitable businesses operations. But investors bidding up stock prices with borrowed money. The people on Wall Street are having the time of their lives during the Obama administration. Because the Obama administration’s policies favor the rich on Wall Street. Whose only worry these days is if the Fed stops printing money. Which will raise interest rates. And end the drunken orgy on Wall Street. Which is why whenever it appears the Fed will taper (i.e., print less money each month) their quantitative easing because the economy is ‘showing signs of improvement’ investors panic and start selling. In a rush to lock in their earnings before the stock prices they inflated come crashing down to reality. For without that ‘free’ money from the Fed the orgy of buying will come to an end. And no one wants to be the one holding on to those inflated stocks when the bubble bursts. When there will be no more buyers. At least, when there will be no more buyers willing to buy at those inflated stock prices. Which is why investors today hate good economic news. For there is nothing worse for an investor in the Obama economy than a good economy.

Week in Review

Those on the left settled for the Affordable Care Act. It’s not what they wanted. But they think it can, in time, give them what they want. Single-payer health care. Or a true national health care system. Like they have in Britain. Oh how the left would love to have a no nonsense National Health Service (NHS) in the United States. A system totally funded by general taxation. Because that would be better than Obamacare. And far better than what Obamacare replaced. Now those who think that are either lying to the American people. Or are completely ignorant to what’s going on in the NHS. For the highly esteemed NHS is on life support (see £10 each can save the NHS by Norman Warner and Jack O’Sullivan posted 3/30/2014 on the guardian).

A care and cash crisis is sending the NHS bust. In its present form, a shortfall of £30bn a year, or more, is expected by 2020. Paying off the nation’s deficit means five more years of further deep public expenditure cuts, whoever is in government. So, over-protecting an outdated, cosseted and unaffordable healthcare system inevitably means starving other vital public services, unless we choke off economic growth and worsen the cost of living with big tax increases. That might be worth contemplating if the NHS was offering brilliant care. But it isn’t.

Just look at the thousands of frail elderly people who get the care they need only by queuing in A&E and spending weeks in hospital – the most expensive and often the worst way to look after them. And let’s not forget that the NHS is sleepwalking through an obesity epidemic.

These are truths hidden from public view. Many politicians and clinicians are scared to tell people that our much-loved 65-year-old NHS no longer meets the country’s needs. Frankly, it is often poor value for money, and the greatest public spending challenge after the general election…

Our specialist hospital services should be concentrated in fewer, safer, better-equipped and more expert centres with 24/7 consultant cover and improved transport links…

A new integrated “National Health and Care Service” would pioneer a “co-producing” health partnership between state and citizen, with annual personal health MOTs agreeing responsibilities over the year for both services and the individual. At the heart of this relationship would be an NHS membership scheme, charging £10 a month (with some exemptions) collected through council tax for local preventative services to help people stay healthy.

This is one of several new funding streams urgently needed to renew impoverished parts of our care system but preserving a mainly tax-funded NHS that is largely free at the point of use. We have to escape the constraints of general taxation if we want a decent system…

Just 3.5% of the annual 500,000 deaths lead to payment of inheritance tax. We must expect the elderly, after their deaths, to contribute more. NHS free entitlements, such as continuing care, could be reduced or means-tested and hotel costs in hospital charged, as in France and Germany.

Britain has an aging population. Fewer people are entering the workforce to pay the taxes that fund the NHS. While more people are leaving the workforce and consuming NHS resources. So less money is going into the NHS while the NHS is spending more and more money on patients. Leading to a deficit that they can’t pay for without killing the economy. Or taking money away from other government services.

If the NHS was providing quality health care they could probably justify taking money away from other areas. But it’s not. The one argument for passing Obamacare was that it would reduce the burden on emergency rooms. But it’s not doing that in Britain. The wait times are so long to see a doctor or get a procedure that people are going to the emergency room (A/E in Britain) and waiting for hours instead of waiting for months. Further increasing costs and wait times. And frustrating patients.

So what is the solution to a failing national health care system? Close hospitals and make people travel further for treatment. And charge them £10 ($16.64) monthly in addition to some of the highest tax rates they already pay to fund the NHS. So, to summarize, to make national health care work in Britain they need to close hospitals, make people travel further for care, charge them more money and make them wait longer for treatment. Which is basically the argument against the Affordable Care Act. It would lead to rationing. And longer wait times. Worse, the quality of care will decline. As it has in Britain. As it will in the United States. For we also have an aging population. And we have about five-times the people they have in Britain. Which will make our problems five-times worse than theirs.

What’s happening in the NHS is no secret. Any proponent of national health care no doubt looks at Britain and their NHS. So they must be familiar with how it’s failing. Yet they press on for a similar system in the United States. Why? If it won’t improve our health care system why do they want national health care? This is the question we should be asking the Democrats. Why? Of course they will say Britain just isn’t doing national health care right. After all, they’ve only been doing it for 66 years. So what do they know about national health care? While we, the liberal Democrats will say, will get national health care right from the get-go. Because we are just so much smarter than everyone else in the world.

Of course the British could, and should, fire back with, “Yeah? How did that Obamacare website rollout go? You’d think that someone who is so smart that they could do national health care right from the get-go could actually build a sodding website that works.”

But, of course, they didn’t. And the website was the easiest part of Obamacare. A one and done thing. And if they couldn’t do that right do we really want these people anywhere near our health care? No. Especially when the British are struggling with national health care after trying it for 66 years. For national health care is apparently more difficult to do than building a sodding website that works.

Week in Review

Some see amnesty as a Democrat voter registration drive. Because people will remember who helped them become legal citizens. The Democrats. And will vote Democrat. Some have also said the Affordable Care Act is another Democrat voter registration drive. As Obamacare gave enormous sums of money to people running the insurance exchanges. To set up and maintain those exchanges. And to do something with all of that data they collected. Such as making sure these people signing up for these ‘Democrat’ benefits (the Affordable Care Act was passed along purely partisan lines) register to vote (see California to Send Voter Registration Cards to Obamacare Applicants by McClatchy News posted 3/25/2014 on Governing).

Heading off a lawsuit over compliance with a federal voting rights law, California officials have agreed to help millions of state residents register to vote.

Under a deal announced Monday by several voting-rights groups, the state will send voter registration cards to nearly 3.8 million Californians who have applied for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act…

The Department of Motor Vehicles and state offices that aid low-income mothers and the disabled are also among the agencies required to provide registration services…

A spokeswoman for the state health insurance exchange, Covered California, said the network had already taken “some interim steps,” including providing voter registration information and links to the secretary of State’s office on its website.

It’s probable that these people would not have voted in the next election had they not signed up for mandatory health insurance. But they did. And now are receiving voter registration information. From the good people who signed them up for their health insurance. No doubt Democrat supporters. Will they coach these people on how to vote as well as registering them to vote? Will someone explain to them that if they want more free benefits they need to vote Democrat? Perhaps.

It’s how you buy votes. You give people something. And keep giving them something as long as they keep voting for you. At least, that’s what they say at election time. “I fought to increase Social Security funding while the Republicans wanted to privatize it and make you risk your retirement in the stock market.” “I fought to increase Medicare spending while the Republicans wanted to privatize it and make it wither on a vine.” Etc. So is it improbable to think someone is telling them to be sure to vote Democrat so the Republicans can’t take away your health insurance? To use tax dollars for health care to register Democrat voters? Not really.

The Democrats ran an ad showing a Republican pushing Granny off a cliff in a wheelchair. ‘Rogue’ IRS agents took it upon themselves (or so the Obama administration claims) to harass Tea Party groups to prevent their fund raising, suppressing their free speech in the 2012 election. And, of course, the Democrats lied to the American people to pass the Affordable Care Act into law. If you like your health insurance and doctor, they said, you could keep your health insurance and doctor. So when it comes to getting what they want they appear to be rather pragmatic. Where the ends justify the means. No matter how unsavory, or legally questionable, those means are. Which would make the insurance exchanges the perfect voter registration mechanism. At least for one not bothered by the unsavory or legally questionable.

Week in Review

As the government has gotten more involved in education the further test scores have fallen. Indian kids and Chinese kids blow American kids away on their tests. Which is why employers who are looking to hire employees with strong math and science skills turn to the H-1B visa. And hire foreign workers with those strong science and math skills. As American kids aren’t graduating with them. Instead they’re learning about global warming and what a rotten country the United States is.

So we shouldn’t spend another dime on education. What we need to do is start teaching useful skills. Like math and science. Instead of the primary focus of public education. Turning kids into Democrat voters. Which is why Democrats are all for universal Pre-K (see Should the Government Fund Universal Pre-K? posted 3/28/2014 on U.S. News and World Report).

One of the centerpieces of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s successful campaign in New York City was a proposal to fund universal pre-kindergarten with higher taxes on the rich. “We’re ready to offer high-quality, full-day, universal pre-K this September for 53,000 New York City children,” de Blasio said during a press conference this week, even as his plan for a tax increase has run into stiff opposition.

And de Blasio isn’t alone in pushing for government funded universal pre-K, as President Obama has also unveiled a proposal to provide pre-school to every four-year-old from low- and moderate-income families. “The size of your paycheck shouldn’t determine your child’s future,” Obama said. “Let’s make sure none of our kids start out the race of life a step behind.”

The liberals are destroying public education. They have control over the curriculum. And that curriculum is to turn kids into Democrat voters. Instead of teaching math and science. Our college graduates may be unable to fill high-tech job openings but they know that their parents’ selfishness caused manmade global warming. That Christopher Columbus single-handedly killed everything that was good in the New World. And that America grew into the number one economic power in the world because of slavery. Despite the South’s slave economy being so poor that they could not compete against the richer paid-labor economy in the North. And lost the American Civil War.

This is why they want universal Pre-K. To start the programming earlier. To get our kids away from their parents sooner. So the state can have a bigger influence in what they learn. And what they think. Does it work? Well, who do young people typically vote for? That’s right. Democrats. Because Democrats get them while they’re young, uneducated and inexperienced. Guaranteeing them a few election cycles out of them before they wise up. And perhaps they can add an election cycle or two if they get these kids sooner with universal Pre-K. Which can be the only reason why they want universal Pre-K. At least it would explain our poor test scores. And why high-tech firms have to use the H-1B visa to find qualified workers.

Week in Review

The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has devastated families of those who were on board. But some people are absolutely giddy about the missing airplane. And can’t wait for the wreckage to be found. Lawyers. So they can start suing and making a lot of money off of the suffering of others (see Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Aviation lawyers flock to China by Peter Ford posted 3/27/2014 on The Christian Science Monitor).

Nineteen days after Malaysia Airlines flight 370 disappeared, search teams have still found no shred of physical evidence to clarify what happened to it or to the 239 people aboard.

But as planes and ships hunt the waters of the Indian Ocean for possible wreckage, lawyers are already scouting for clients at the Lido Hotel in Beijing, where passengers’ relatives are staying.

Holding out the prospect of multimillion dollar compensation deals, aviation disaster lawyers from US and Chinese firms are hovering in the hotel’s coffee shop and corridors in the hope that the biggest mystery in modern aviation history will end with a major payout for victims’ families, and for them…

Mr. Wang, who headed for Beijing as soon as he heard that the plane had disappeared, says he has offered his firm’s services to the relatives of more than 100 passengers on a “no win, no fee” contingency basis, and that about 10 have signed up with Ribbeck…

Equally complex is the question of where any suit against Malaysia Airlines may be heard (though a complaint against Boeing, an American company, would most likely be heard in the United States). While a Malaysian or Chinese court might seem the obvious place, lawyers for potential plaintiffs would be anxious to have any complaint judged in the United States, because “you are looking at a much larger award” there, says Ms. Feng.

This is why they make lawyer jokes. Call them ambulance chasers. These are the only people—apart from terrorists— who smile at the loss of life. Because whenever there is a tragedy it means a big paycheck for a law firm. Those on the left will call doctors greedy and that they shouldn’t profit on the suffering of others. Many blaming them for all our health care woes. Those greedy doctors. Who the government should force to work for less. As Obamacare will. But it should be noted that doctors actually save lives while getting rich. Lawyers don’t. They just take the biggest cut of any legal settlement. Helping themselves far more than they help their clients. But those on the left have no problem with lawyers getting rich on the suffering of others. Why? Because lawyers support Democrats. And donate money to their campaigns. Which is why the Democrats will never reform tort law. Because lawyers and Democrats make a lot of money with these lawsuits. And they have no intentions of ever changing that.

Week in Review

A lot of people fear big corporations. And fight hard against them. Especially the big ones that provide a wide variety of goods and/or services at lower prices than the competition. The kind that put Mom and Pop stores out of business. Opponents of these big corporations say those low prices are only a dirty trick to put the competition out of business. To make themselves a monopoly. And once they get rid of all competition with their unfair low prices there will be nothing to stop them from raising their prices. Higher than even the Mom and Pop stores they put out of business. Of course, if that were true then you wouldn’t read stories like this (see Chick-fil-A Stole KFC’s Chicken Crown With a Fraction of the Stores by Venessa Wong posted 3/28/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek).

The days when fried chicken was synonymous with a certain white-haired southern gentleman are over, at least in the U.S. A new champion has claimed KFC’s long-held chicken crown: Chick-fil-A…

Anyone in the northern half of the U.S. is likely scratching her head and wondering why she hasn’t seen Chick-fil-A outlets opening in the neighborhood. Last year Chick-fil-A only had about 1,775 U.S. stores to KFC’s 4,491, and most are in the South. Yet in dollar terms the Colonel is coming up short even with that much larger footprint: Chick-fil-A’s 2013 sales passed $5 billion, while all of KFC’s U.S. restaurants rang up about $4.22 billion, according to Technomic. And that’s with zero dollars coming in to Chick-fil-A on Sundays, when every restaurant is closed.

Chick-fil-A has fewer outlets than KFC. Yet they have a greater sales volume. Why? Because they sell at higher prices than KFC. According to those who fear big corporations this is not supposed to happen. KFC should be able to sell at lower prices than the smaller Chick-fil-A. So low that Chick-fil-A should go bankrupt trying to match the unfair lower prices of KFC. But that isn’t happening. Because there is no way any corporation can monopolize any industry without the government first creating a monopoly for them. As Chick-fil-A has proven. They thought they could offer food people would prefer over KFC. And did. Despite KFC dominating the industry. And the people liked the food so much that they were willing to pay more to eat Chick-fil-A over the less expensive KFC.

The only way you can shut someone out of an industry is by raising the barriers to enter that industry. Such as with costly licensing, permitting, fees, restrictive regulatory policies, etc. Things only the government can force on the competition wishing to enter a market. Thus limiting competition in that market to protect their crony friends. But if there is no government protection of established businesses that are monopolies or quasi monopolies anyone can enter the market and compete against them. As Chick-fil-A proves.

People shouldn’t fear big corporations. They should fear government. The only entity that can create and enforce a monopoly. For it is only with the government’s help that a monopoly can gouge customers with their high prices. Because in a free market with low barriers to enter it will be impossible to gouge customers as the competition will keep all pricing competitive. Because if some try to gouge their customers those customers will just go to the lower-priced competition.

Week in Review

Some say it’s pointless for the United States to cut back on its carbon emissions. For whatever we do it won’t change what China and India are doing. And what are they doing? They’re building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow. So it is kind of pointless what we do. For when it comes to global warming it won’t make a difference what one nation on the globe is doing. As the massive amounts of carbon emissions produced by China and India will enter the atmosphere surrounding the globe. Which will affect the United States. Even if we shrink our carbon footprint to nothing.

On Monday, 24 March 2014, Oslo Airport received a certificate showing that it is certified according to the internationally recognised ISO 14001 standard by DNV GL (Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd)…

Developed by ISO (the International Organization for Standardization), ISO 14001 is an international standard for environmental management based on two concepts: continuous improvement and regulatory compliance…

OSL has been focused on protecting the external environment ever since the airport was on the drawing boards. OSL is working systematically to reduce the environmental impact of its operations and also uses new technology and innovation to improve its performance. These measures include converting stored winter snow into cooling energy in the summer, the recovery of energy from wastewater and a pilot project to study the use of hydrogen as an energy source for vehicles at the airport. OSL has been certified since 2010 at the highest level of Airport Carbon Accreditation, a voluntary scheme to systematically reduce greenhouse gas emissions together with the players at the airport.

If there was any place that should get a pass on their carbon footprint it should be an airport. Because whatever they do will not offset the carbon emissions of the airplanes landing and taking off from that airport. And they emit a lot of carbon. So much that the Europeans wanted to extend their emissions trading scheme (ETS) to include airlines. Making them pay for the amount of carbon they emit when flying in EU airspace. Something the Chinese are very opposed to. As are other non-EU members. So much so that they delayed the inclusion of air travel into the ETS.

The biggest carbon emitters at any airport are the planes. Nothing even comes close. So why spend the money for a costly certification when it won’t make any difference? For the only way to make a real cut in carbon emissions at an airport is to get rid of the planes. Of course, if they did that then we wouldn’t need any ISO 14001 compliant airports, would we? But if we did this it wouldn’t stop China and India from building their coal-fired power plants. Proving how futile any efforts in combating manmade global warming are. It’s just money that could have been spent on feeding the hungry. Housing the homeless. Treating the sick. Or a myriad of other social spending that actually helps some people.

Week in Review

We are continually told that there is a consensus among climate ‘scientists’ that global warming is real. And that man is causing it. It’s settled science they say. But have you ever wondered how real scientists do things? The kind that don’t take a vote on whether something is settled science? Here is a look into the world of theoretical physicists. A group of people that theorize about things far bigger than mere climate (see Physicists say Big Bang theory revelation may be premature by Liat Clark posted 3/25/2014 on Wired).

Three theoretical physicists have penned a paper suggesting last week’s announcement that cosmic ripples from the Big Bang have been identified may have been premature.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announcement rocked the scientific community with the revelation the South Pole BICEP2 telescope had captured twisted patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) left behind after the Big Bang. The Smithsonian team believes these are a glimpse of the gravitational waves that were generated by cosmic inflation — an epic distortion of space-time just after the Big Bang when the universe expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

James Dent of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University and Harsh Mathur of the Case Western Reserve University have argued on the open access platform arxiv.org that the claim of definitive proof should not be made until all other possibilities have been ruled out.

Even after a paper has been published claiming definitive proof the subject is still open for debate. Now that’s science. And note that part about ruling out ALL OTHER possibilities. You never hear that kind of language from the climate ‘scientists’. Have they done that in their research? Or did they only look at selective data to prove what they want to prove? Did they rule out sunspot activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? A warming of the oceans that shifts the jet stream? Or did they ignore this because it contradicts what they want the data to show? There is a correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and recent warming periods. Which would be one other possibility they need to rule out. But can’t. So they simply ignore it. Proving that ‘climate science’ is more politics than science. A tool for big-government leftists around the world to do what they’ve always wanted to do. To use the power of government to create a ruling class. Of a small group of people that has power over the masses. And who live quite comfortably while telling us what we must go without.

It’s nothing new. Since the dawn of time there have been those who seek power. To create a small ruling elite that lives better than everyone else. Much better. As every dictator in history has shown. North Korea still suffers from famine. But the ruling powers (currently Kim Jong-un) ate so well that they suffered from a little obesity. Kim Jong-un lives a privileged life. He has the best of everything while his people still go hungry. If that country were free, however, Kim Jong-un would live a less extravagant life. Perhaps even doing manual labor. For his only skill was having the right last name to become dictator.

This is why people want power. For even in the poorest countries those at the top live like kings. And those on the left, rabid anti-capitalists that they are, have no skill other than political skills. They want to live like kings. But they don’t want to work hard to earn it. So they use politics. Expand the size of government. To create as many high-paying posts that do nothing worthwhile as possible. So there is a place for these people. Where they can live better than everyone else without having earned it. This is why they want to nationalize health care. For that can create many levels of high-paying bureaucratic positions. And if they can get the economy of every country to bow down to their climate panels they can live better than kings. They can live as emperors. Over a vast empire they control. Living in the lap of luxury. Accumulating great wealth. And drunk on the power they can wield. Where they can get back at anyone that was ever better than them if they don’t bow down and kiss their fanny.

Week in Review

People don’t want Obamacare. And they are getting angry. Making the Democrats very nervous. Especially those up for election this fall. Which is why there is yet another delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act. To make voters less angry this fall.

This law was never popular. The American people never wanted it. The only reason why we have it is because the Democrats pushed it through when they had control of the House, Senate and White House. And bought off a few recalcitrant Democrat senators (the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, etc.) to garner the 60 votes necessary to force this unpopular law onto the American people. So the Democrats could put us on a path towards single-payer. Which President Obama is on the record preferring. Single-payer. But accepted the Affordable Care Act as a means to that end. So we can one day have a health care system like they have in Canada. Because things are so much better in Canada (see Waiting times cost B.C. patients $155.5 million last year: Fraser Institute study by Bethany Lindsay posted 3/25/2014 on The Vancouver Sun).

Waiting for medically necessary surgeries cost British Columbian patients about $155.5 million in lost time last year, a Fraser Institute economist claims in a new study.

It estimates that the total cost to Canadian patients of waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist was $1.1 billion in 2013, up from $982 million in 2012. Quebec had the highest cost at $267.7 million.

Author Nadeem Esmail said the report explores a consequence of waiting for care that Canadians don’t often consider…

Esmail said that in order to address the problem of long waiting times, he’d like to see Canada allow more private sector participation in the provision of health care, including the development of a parallel private system…

Overall, British Columbians waited a median 10.4 weeks for treatment after their first appointment with a specialist last year, compared to 9.6 weeks across Canada, according to the study.

Imagine that. The Republicans were right. A single-payer health care system leads to rationing of health care resources. And sick people waiting for their turn for fewer, rationed health care resources leads to, of course, longer wait times. This is what the Democrats want to force on the American people. Even when some in Canada are suggesting a parallel private health care system to reduce wait times down from 10 weeks or so. Which is why the Democrats had to be as devious as possible to pass Obamacare into law. With shady backroom deals like the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback and Gator Aid. And then lying through their teeth about being able to keep the health insurance and doctors you liked and wanted to keep. A lie so bold it earned President Obama the Lie of the Year from PolitiFact.

Will this anger boil over this November at the 2014 midterm elections? Will voters remember how the Democrats lied and made backroom deals to change a health care system we liked and wanted to keep? Apparently President Obama thinks so. Which is why he violated the law once again and extended the enrollment period for Obamacare. Without having Congress rewrite the law. To make this latest change in the Affordable Care Act (and the 30 or so that preceded it) legal. But then again, when the media keeps giving the president a pass on his law-breaking activities what incentive does the administration have to act lawful? It’s kind of like Vladimir Putin taking Crimea. The way Putin sees it no one is going to do anything when he breaks the law so what incentive does he have to abide by international law? If anything he’s probably puzzled why President Obama is saying anything at all. For what’s a little law-breaking between two law breakers?

Week in Review

Anne Jarvis’ father, Andrew, is an architect that splits his time between his firm’s branches in New York City and Philadelphia. The commute became so overwhelming that he began to rent an apartment in NYC to improve his quality of life.

Upon further inspection of tax laws, Andrew learned that in order to avoid being taxed by New York, he would only be allowed to live in the city 182 days or less out of the year. In preparation for disputes against his living situation, he began taking selfies, as a way to prove to the taxman that he spends more time in Philadelphia, than he does in New York.

When a taxing authority taxes too much the natural inclination of free people is to move. And that’s what was happening in East Berlin. The best and brightest that drove the economy were walking across the street into the West. Leaving behind only the less-educated and the less-skilled. So to stop this brain-drain the communists built the Berlin Wall. To keep the best and brightest from going to where life was better.

Those on the left will read this story and call this architect greedy. For he enjoys the privilege of working and living in New York City part of the year. And should pay for that privilege. In particular so they can have more free stuff paid for by the best and brightest. But if New York starts taxing his income that doesn’t mean Pennsylvania will stop taxing his income. No. They both will tax his income. As if he’s two different people. That is, he will pay the taxes of two people. Is that fair? Would even those on the left call that fair? Of course if you suggest they should pay two cellular bills (theirs and somebody else’s) they would say, “Wait a minute. That is NOT fair.” But the architect? They’d probably say something like, “He’s rich. He can afford to pay the income taxes of two people. And should.”

Being rich is a relative term. It basically means anyone making more than you these days. So even people who win the lotto don’t consider themselves rich when it comes to paying income taxes. They’ll say that having to give almost half of their winnings to the taxman is unfair. But having two states tax this architect is fair. Because he can afford it. For he earns that every year. While they only won one lotto.

The way New York City is going they will have to build a wall around Manhattan if they expect to keep the best and brightest from fleeing their oppressive tax rates. Or they’ll have to get the federal government to tax all states oppressively high so people have no better place to go. Which explains why big-government liberals are all for expanding the power of the federal government. For their oppressive liberal policies won’t work if the people can move to another state to escape them.